[ SECRET POST #2545 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2545 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 070 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[dreemyweird]

I agree. Freudian excuses are an indicator of a lazily written antagonist. Plus, they instantly make the character bland and uninteresting. Half a century ago, when nobody had access to the Internet, the idea must have seemed novel and tickled people's imagination; "wow, this dude is obsessed with killing little girls because his mother didn't love him! How psychologically profound!". Now? Nope, sorry. All such tropes do is make me yawn. Like, sure, there are actual serial killers whose motives can be classified as Freudian, but, if you wish to portray one, do not go for the "super duper ultimate villain you'll never understand" characterization. Because the reader understands all too well and hence starts seeing the protagonist (and, by extension, the author) as a moron.

This is a part of the reason why I found the confrontation scene in Curtain disappointing. Though it was somewhat remedied by the fact that Christie's original idea regarding the way the killer committed his crimes was remarkably fresh.

Personally, I often find that the scariest and most interesting antagonists are those whose motives are never fully explained/whose motives are explained but whose feelings are not. And yes, the Shakespearean Meltdown ones are very good, too, partially because there are so many different ways in which they can be written.

ETA: oh and btw I love your weird-ass design

[(Anonymous)]

I kind of blame Red Dragon for the influx of Freudian excuses for villains. Wasn't that the book that started the trend?

[dreemyweird]

Might have been. The tendency certainly emerged around that time, but I don't really know if Red Dragon was a part of it or if it was because of Red Dragon. It might be both, actually.

[(Anonymous)]

The scene in the book or the adaptation?

[dreemyweird]

In the adaptation. IIRC, in the book, Poirot only briefly mentions the killer's motives (writing something to the effect of "he enjoys having power over people's lives").

[(Anonymous)]

O that sound realy anoying. I stopped watching the adaptation after the murder on the orient expres because I couldn't stand watching poirot feel guilty about letting the killers go. It would be so out of caracter for him to do that considering the people he let go or commit suicide in the past. I do like the series but the extra dram a gets on my nerves.

[dreemyweird]

Yes, it felt quite OOC to me, too. Nevertheless, The Orient Express is one of my favourite episodes of all times *sighs* Go figure.

I think the creators started getting tired of the series. The last episodes were all quality productions, but none of them were brilliant. Just, decent and mediocre (and the extra drama was a lazy plot device). So, unlike the OP of the Poirot secret from yesterday, I am thankful that this show is over - I'll always remember it fondly without having to wince at the memory of the parts that were genuinely bad (the way fans of some other long-ish shows do).

I would never trust anyone to produce original Poirot storylines. The purpose of this series was to be a screen version of Christie's books (with some added twists), which is why it makes perfect sense for Curtain to be the last Suchet Poirot production. Let somebody else do Poirot pastiches; as long as it is not a part of Agatha Christie's Poirot, I care not.

I did not mind the drama that much, but I see how it could make the series completely unwatchable were it to become more prominent.

[(Anonymous)]

This is weird to me. "I know these are realistic and true to life, but don't let me know that.' That is the whole point of writing stories is to tell truths about the world around us.

Plus, not every psychological reason is Freudian (in fact most are, as most of his theories aren't real to life) and it takes a lot more work and research to write about the psychological reasons behind someone's actions then it ever will to say "people are born evil", "oh, no reason, born evil" is the lazy way of writing. You don't have to do anything to write it.

That's the one I hate, because people are not born evil and because of lazy people and how people just loved to judge others without getting to know the full story a lot of people seriously believe people can be born evil.

"super duper ultimate villain you'll never understand" characterization.

This is the real problem with those stories. It doesn't matter how you end it, if you have this character you are being lazy. There is no such thing as this in real life and we need to stop teaching people that there is and that it is interesting.